Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services

[Marcus Brody]

Still no details about who paid how much for whats to be consullted then. How many meetings, where, when. So much for transparancy in the civil service. Presumably the ifa will cite confidentuality overt the contract with the civil servants.

As I think was pointed out earlier,

The national heritage agencies have provided some funding to allow the IfA to employ a contractor to undertake the donkey work of preparing a draft standard and managing a a consultation process.

I've no idea what the value of the contract was, but surely if anyone's to blame for overcharging in that situation, it would be the private sector consultant rather than the civil servants. Indeed, the 'civil servants' working for the national agencies would have no input in the process, beyond providing the money (as far as I'm aware, the IfA aren't civil servants, so no matter what you think of them, you can't tar them with that particular brush!)

Beyond that, have you actually asked these questions of anyone that was directly involved in the process? It's all very well moaning on a message board about lack of transparency, but I don't think it's reasonable to whinge about the absence of a response unless you've actually asked. As public bodies, the national agencies would be subject to FOI requests, and I think that they also publish a list of grants made - for example, the list of grants made by English Heritage for Historic Buildings, Monuments and Designed Landscapes between 2004 and 2010 can be downloaded here. I'd assume that any grant made for this standards document would appear on a similar spreadsheet in due course.

I'm no particular supporter of the IfA, and on another thread I argued against their suggestion that councils should require developers to use only ROs. It's still my opinion that this would probably amount to restraint of trade and restriction of the market, so I'm not particularly happy to see this resurface in the current consultation document. However, it is still at the draft stage, and I'd hope to see those sections removed (indeed, to everyone on here who objects to them, I'd suggest you should take part in the consultation, as this offers a far more direct route to make sure your views are taken into account). Beyond that, however, I do think that having written standards for curators is no bad thing - just as a contractor should have to meet certain minimum standards, I see no reason why we shouldn't have something against which curators can be measured. If there's a curator who's failing to meet these standards, the existence of a written document that sets out what they should be doing, and more importantly where they're falling short, is likely to prove useful. It would also be helpful in establishing a degree of consistency when working across different areas, as all the council archaeologists would be basing their advice on the same underlying aims.

[Dinosaur]

Thank you Ken :face-approve:

I'll second and third that! :face-approve::face-approve::face-approve:

Quality has absolutely nothing to do with being a RO, as has become painfully obvious over the years. Hence the move (certainly around here) towards forms of quality accreditation that actually mean something.....

[Martin Locock]

ROs must have:

"They must have a MIfA-grade Responsible Post-holder. Registered Organisations are strictly bound to the IfA Code of conduct and other by-laws, they must work in accordance with defined policies and procedures, and comply with current best practice. They will fully document their work, findings and advice, carry adequate professional insurance, and be committed to providing their staff with a fair employment package"

It's not everything, but it's not nothing. And there is a complaints system that is binding.

[kevin wooldridge]

In answer to Ken's questions I suspect the answer lies in the IfA achieving chartered status and therefore, by Privy Council recognition, becoming the default body setting professional standards....it's the long game!!

[Martin Locock]

On the subject of the national heritage agencies providing funding to the IfA, I don't know the details for this standard but what I said was certainly the case previously.

[Unitof1]

Thanks Mr Brody I look forward to trying to work out the vat implications of was it a grant presumably after the horse has bolted

the source for the funding is the Consultation letter saying that

Submitted by Kathryn Whittington on Monday 16 January 2012

IfA and ALGAO, with funding from English Heritage, Historic Scotland
and Cadw, are developing an IfA Standard and guidance to cover the role
of providing archaeological advice primarily, but not exclusively, through local authority historic environment services.

They (must be the members of the ifa but also some self-appointed grope called algao) expect the consultation done by 17 February (so is that funding for one month consultation and then some rearagment of the draft wording for another month) and the acceptance of the so called standard at some obscure extraordinary meeting-Is that the meeting at oxford by 18-20thApril?.

So what happens if this contract is unsucessful do they get their monies back?

I don’t know if the people from the organizations who funded the consultation and who presumably drafted the standard will be at the meeting although they are probably funding the meeting as well.

http://www.archaeologists.net/node/523

Apparently the great theme of the meeting is would you Adam and Eve itis



The2012 debate is entitled: What is the future for Local Planning Authorities andarchaeology?



WHO SHOULD ATTEND?

The sessions and workshops are relevant to all those involved in the historic environment.

The great cba towergate association goes on

Setting up a new business? A guide to business start-ups andgetting registered

– David Cawdeary and Tariq Mian, Towergate and Kirsten Collins,IfA

In recent months the sector has seen an increase in the set up of small businesses and a rise in applications from companies wishing to become Registered Organisations with the IfA. This workshop training session, run jointly by Towergate Insurance and IfA, o_ers delegates a chance to learn the best route to follow for starting up any business and some practical advice on getting registered. The session includes a guide to the importance of risk management and insurance, hearing from specialist insurers with 12 yrs experience of working with archaeologists in how these factors contribute to the success of any business. In addition, you will hear from the directors and senior management of currently Registered Organisations about the process and bene_ts of IfA registration, and have the opportunity to test-drive your business through the registration process with IfA Standards Compliance Manager, Kirsten Collins.

This is the old joke that the council says that you should have public indemnity insurance to work on somebodies site.

Anyway lost the plot
I cant findout when the great extraordinary meeting to rubber stamp the joke standard will be exactly. Will the scots and the welsh heritage civil servants be there to help the English heritage civil servants get the wonderful standard approved. Get your postal vote in. Is it first past the post, or proportional waste of time. Cant wait, have already up my prices by 200% but still can do the curators jobs for free.

[ken_whittaker]

In answer to Ken's questions I suspect the answer lies in the IfA achieving chartered status and therefore, by Privy Council recognition, becoming the default body setting professional standards....it's the long game!!

....and the wrong game. I’ll highlight two reasons:

1.The IfA is a membership organisation representing professional interests of its members. It is not a competent QA accreditation organisation supporting commerce and industry, such as UKAS. These are separate functions and the roles are not compatible. To illustrate this point, IfA’s ability to focus on member interests has been compromised by the demands of the ROs on issues such as salary benchmarking. This need not occur if it addressed concerns regarding standards in commercial practice by promoting the take up of corporate accreditation schemes that already exist. UKAS is universally recognised across all sector of industry and, as Martin point out, enjoys Government recognition in the public sector, which remains a major employer of archaeologists.

2. Any rational response to the impact of poor quality business management on the archaeology sector must recognise it doesn’t have time for a long game. Two large employers offering commercial archaeological services have posted financial results that show three consecutive years where spending exceeds income to a cumulative total value of between ?1,336, 855 and ?1,513,988. Much is made of the cost of operating an ISO9000 management system, but this demonstrates the far greater cost of failing to implement appropriate systems, which are particularly critical in a period of low growth. This has a drastic effect on the balance sheet of the respective companies, which makes for an uncertain future within the foreseeable economic climate. Similarly it hits the sector in terms of job losses and poor pay.

Charter status is a distraction and a vainity exercise in such circumstances. To seek to impose a form of trade restraint without detailing credible mechanisms by which competence and accreditation is determined simply amounts to protectionism. I look forward to a day when the IfA first response to a problem facing the profession is to make sure that itself does not part of the problem. It may then be better placed to look beyond the immediate issue to find solutions that have clear benefits for the profession and not simply serve perceived self interests.

[Unitof1]

Kev what kens saying is that the ifa should drop ROs, stop issuing standards for obscure civil service jobs and when he says

Two large employers offering commercial archaeological services have posted financial results that show three consecutive years where spending exceeds income to a cumulative total value of between ?1,336, 855
and?1,513,988.

He means that if it wasn?t for their dodgy charity trust status they should have gone bust years ago

[ken_whittaker]

The ISO9000 scheme has seen relatively little take-up in British archaeology (20 in 2008): I think it would be good to encourage its wider adoption. IfA does nudge ROs in this direction. Perhaps a line in the guidance could mention QA systems as a good thing.

Incidentally government advice is for public bodies to only count ISO firms accredited by members of UKAS - there are variations in practice elsewhere in the world under the nominal heading.

Martin

I'd love to see a commitment to a campaign that carried the full weight of the IfA, sadly noises off stage don't convince and I'm still waiting for a credible response to my three questions I'm afraid.

[ken_whittaker]

Kev what kens saying is that the ifa should drop ROs, stop issuing standards for obscure civil service jobs and when he says



He means that if it wasn’t for their dodgy charity trust status they should have gone bust years ago

The headline of the day.....'Unit helps interpret someone else's BAJR post'.

Thanks Unit might never have done it without you, but I'm not sure I'm ready to defer to your understanding of charitable trust status and the protection confered against insolvency.